|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Looking at the class i'm not sure how you're "supposed" to play it. For the test i made the exact "horror" this thread was worried about but a standard action at the start of every comobat is way too precious to give up for his dex Kurki. He's going to have to get slashing grace or something similar.
DM Beckett wrote:
Or, by all means, present your own. There are plenty of ways to be much more optimized. That wasn't really the point I was making, as it goes both ways.
The point that I think you missed in your comparison is that fighting with one weapon is such a sub optimal fighting style in this system that the boost you're complaining about is needed just to get on part with fighting with a two handed weapon: which is really what you should be comparing a swashbuckler or other fency type with.
Trying to say that what the rules say is not what the rules say is a tall order. This... falls very very short of that standard.
Example 1: I am 10' away from you, you have a melee weapon in hand that does not have reach. I run past you, ending up 10' on the other side of you.
What happens is you attempt to move past him. You move individually from one square to another.
Once you enter his threatened square and then ATTEMPT to leave it, you provoke an AoO. That AoO may stop your intended action any numbers of ways: including being tripped or even decapitated.
Does the AoO go off before my triggering action? No, it can't, I'm out of your reach at that point in time. It goes off when I leave a threatened square - which is in the middle of my actual action.
What you've done is grouped a series of events together and labeled them collectively as the triggering action when that is not how the game works. The triggering action is you leaving a square, not the composite action of "running past him". A thing is not the same as all of its parts.
The rules still say what the rules still say.
Milo v3 wrote:
That says the exact opposite. It very clearly says that both cover or concealment and non observed status are required. You could try to read one sentence without the others in the paragraph, but that interpretation would bring up the question of why anyone would ever try to make the bluff check to hide, get to cover, AND take a -10 on their stealth check if all one had to do was get to cover. It also makes a direct contradiction with the first sentence, which would be meaningless.
Shadow dancer HIPS gives you cover and unobserved. Ranger HIPS gives you concealment but not unobserved: but the lower level ability camoflauge has observation covered. Rogue HIPS was supposed to give you both, but because it copied the ranger HIPS it technically does not (trying to find SKR's statement that it was supposed to)
Milo v3 wrote:
I remember that being RAI that never made it to raw for a lot of the various HIPS abilities but I can't find the citation i was looking for.
Does a 5 foot step count as movement for a stealth check?
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Yes: Movements movement and its not an action.
No: the game means movement like a move action. Sniping would be kind of pointless if you could just 5 foot step stealth.
Usually this comes up for roguey types with hide in plain sight or hellcat stealth who want to sneak attack step and sneak attack again.
What kind of action is it to make a distraction to hide?
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
As there's no listed action it defaults to standard.
The Heretic inquisitor has it as a move action as a special ability, implying that its at least a standard but it would be pretty useless as a full round action.
So how i think this should work.
Standard action LOOK! A MONKEY!
Bluff vs Sense motive
Move to cover or concealment
Stealth check at -10 because you have to move fast Vs Perception.
Maybe stealth needs a blog....
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Well, if PFS is saying that its saying that with a whole lot of playtesting. If you and your DM like the old version nothing is stopping you from keeping it, but its not all that unlikely that your DM and a lot of other DMs were either getting their bad guys stymied by it or raised the power level of the encounters to deal with it, possibly stomping the rest of the table who didn't have it.
Brew Bird wrote:
Dex to damage is a build or feat sponge. The option there is to have really good feat chains that make not taking it to really make it a trade off. Vital strike or dex to damage isn't going to tempt anyone.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I think they wanted Swashbuckler to have some sort of unique trick that no one else had, but incorrectly chose Patty/riposte over Precise Strike.
Why on earth would you ever use precise strike for level to damage when you can use parry/riposte for weapon and dex and level to damage? I suppose if you're fighting a caster, but thats about it.
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
I usually see them after the cull so not THAT reject pile.
Bryce Kineman wrote:
and again, archives of nethys shows why its not only as good but a better source than the printed material.
Mead Gregorisson wrote:
The verdict is that 4% of the population got one word crossed out for marriage laws to accomidate a desire that is fundamental to the very core of their being. Less than 1% of the population is NOT getting an entire shelf of law books written to accommodate a personal desire. Its not happening.
By all means, push for it to be decriminalized, but you're going to have to go to a lawyer and write up your own contract for how the heck that works.
This is more home brew than pfs. An eidolon (or even animal companions) personality isn't something that a DM can really play and take over without knowing the animal companion , which is hard when you keep switching Dms.
And by the rules the handle animal rules provide very little limit on a characters ability to control their pet if the player knows what they're doing.
So basically, because Medieval Europe had these prejudices, they're the default in fantasy settings. Medieval Europe also horribly limited your roles in society by gender and by class and birth. Somehow that's not nearly so strongly the default in fantasy settings. Possibly because prejudice against LGTBQ is still common in our society?
Thats a heck of a leap of logic.
A woman warrior overcoming society's prejudice and proving their worth a la joan of arc or mulan is a very common story: so much so that even the barbarian iconic has it as a back story despite most of golarion being almost gender neutral. So yes, in most fantasy settings the gender role is there.
Class is a little different. Because mid adventurer automatically equals wearing the GDP of a small duchy they're effectively outside of the class structure.
You will occasionally see an uppity noble, or have a noble that needs to be taken alive rather than murderated because doing so would cause too many problems.
It's hard to get rid of once it exists, but it's far from inevitable.
How nevitable is it though?
In fact, many of the known examples of groups with "third gender" roles and the like are just the sort of small tribes you're asserting are least likely to accept.
How many of those small tribes are there though?
Perhaps its a form of birth control? Where the population has leveled out? Until that happens its discouraged, once you've hit the population your area will support with your current tec level your society starts endorsing or at least tolerating it?
If it was that simple, it would be universal. And yet, there are societies that have and have had far less prejudice against LGBTQs than the medieval or even modern West.
Medieval Europe is the culture most people are familiar with, and the one usually associated with fantasy role playing games. If you have something like medieval Europe in one respect, people are probably going to use that as a guideline.
That things like third gender are accepted doesn't mean that they're universally accepted or that there's no prejudice towards them in their society.
Another difference for LGBTQ people is that if they're not hiding and closeted, they're not that "Other". They're people just like you that you can get to know and like before realizing they're different.
You need a large population with a lot of exposure for this to work. We're JUST getting there in the modern west with the aid of television. If your entire monkeysphere consists of the 1,000 people in your city you're not going to know enough of a minority to really bring them into the tribe.
They could be your brother or sister, your daughter or son, your childhood friend or your nice co-worker. That's a large part of how prejudice is fading in the modern world - not through some enlightenment or uniquely modern viewpoint, but by the old fashioned tribal process of knowing people.
Could be, but if you only know a few dozen people it probably won't be, especially if there's a greater tendency to keep it under wraps. They might be there, but you don't know about it. And because they can't act on it , you don't know about it, which keeps familiarity from happening.
Beyond that, in a fantasy world, if we have many different intelligent races and we can decide that we can overlook the predisposition to hate and fear difference there so that we can have a more fun game where such different creatures can interact without constant war and hatred, why do we have to keep this prejudice?
I don't think it NEEDS to be kept, but singling it out for exclusion is something you'd actively have to do rather than just assuming it would automatically be tossed.
Because its different than most of the people around you.
Its different because your DNA has a vested interest in reproducing. which oddly enough involves encouraging you to find and attract
This produces a vast majority of people who are physically male, act like men, and attracted to women and physically women who act like women and are attracted to men.
If you don't fit in that mold then you stand out.
If you stand out, you are not one of us. One of us. One of us humans are tribal little
It came from somewhere. And prejudices can change over time. Look at some of the US's history regarding certain immigrant groups and how acceptable they were. And don't forget the power of demagogues to stir things up in their own view.
Prejudice tends to die down quickly when you can't tell members of a group from anyone else: hence why prejudice against the Irish vanished after a few generations: they look talk and act just like everyone else.
Trying to claim such a thing is a default IS a position that's being forced on a setting.
I don't think its being forced on the setting. I think its the authors/dm having people act like people and unfortunately our reference pool for how people act is... pretty horrible.
On the other hand, its perfectly reasonable to say that in a world filled with dragons elves dwarves and roaving monsters humans have their sociopathic group forming tendencies channeled elsewhere...
Or its entirely possible that the level of danger presented by the world produces societies that NEED to reproduce like rabbits in order to maintain the red shirt population, leading to even stricter gender roles (because you can lose half the men and not lose one whit of reproductive ability) and more encouragement of male/female pairings.
The best guide I can use for a society is history, and different histories.
A big problem is that a lot of gender studies looking into the matter do so with a tabula rasa/all nurture no nature view of humanity that I find bafflingly unrealistic.
Societies come up with the social mores that they have for a reason. They tend to far outlive whatever usefulness they may have, but very few social institutions pop up just because. It doesn't make them right but it does make them likely.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Its really different from most peoples experiences. To most people not having those desires at all would make someone almost a different species. (despite the fact that they should remember a time in their life when they did feel that way)
Its hard to demonstrate a lack of something.\: show rather than tell (is rocket raccoon asexual or just not seeing any comparable females? Story wise they look exactly the same)
It removes a lot of possible character motivations.
Setting wise... why are there still people? Cloning? People doing it anyway? How did the planet wind up that way etc.
Why? Because some circles would either say they don't exist, or that they aren't part of LGBT.
I don't think it fits in the catagory that well. Other than being different from "standard" there's not much in common. (LG is a lot closer to hetero than asexual is to either)
The lack of a need to congregate or find each other also renders us pretty much invisible. Hard for people to be riled up about things that they don't know exist.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
It might cut down on the desire for
- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?
One. Page. Dear gods one page.
I have no idea where half of the faq's are. They're stored on individual books, and not always on the book you'd think they would be. The FAQ on altering class features for archetypes is on the core rule book... which doesn't even deal with archtypes.
I'd like to see why things were changed. A lot of the recent errata has been "wth?" levels of why something changed. If one ability was causing the need for a nerf to the bonus class abilities.. change that ability, not the entire class.
The "this paragraph this sentence replace this.. on that page on this sentence replace that..." format is great for an editor, but as a player it gives me NO idea what i'm looking at unless i can put two things up on my screen at the same time and pen something in, cross something out, and then read it.
- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?
- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?
I like how pfsrd does it: you have the real text, the old text is there with a strike through through it.
- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?
Still dealing with that new fangled fire thing. Not my area of expertise.